Mechanics that you want

[Snowy_One]

The fact that they don't act like typical mercenaries is what makes them interesting. Let's play a game with regular mercenaries. They get hired by the highest bidder and then they do what they're contracted, no questions asked. What a wonderful story. What drama. What compelling action.

Shinon and Soren would have no reason to exist in such a scenario, as they only existed to begin with to contrast the chivalric heroism of the rest of the gang.

Actually, that could be interesting if done right. They get hired out by the highest bidder to do a task, but the task is something that they realize is morally wrong. Probably been done before though.

And just to be clear, it isn't good/evil choices that are bad in a game of necessity. It's that the two are often wildly disproportionate and easy to spot and will often play to the extremes. It's not that you can choose between jedi and sith, it's that, if you are a jedi, you will always be the 'defend everyone even at the cost of yourself, stick your nose into everyones problem, and everything' jedi while if you are sith you will be 'GRAAAAA! KICK THE PUPPIES BECAUSE THEY YIP AT NIGHT' sith. In ME, if you are a paragon, you will always be the idealistic 'for the greater good' paragon while if you are a renegade you are... well... an ass. As a result, the choices loose all real meaning. One way is the obvious 'good' way while the other is the obvious 'bad' way. You don't really think about the consequences at all. Using ME2...

At one point you help the Justicar Samara track down her daughter Morenth to kill her because she is a sex-vampire. You get to see all the things she does, how she lured in a young woman to kill, just because she refuses to go into seclusion. Eventually you meet her and Samara and Morenth become deadlocked and you are given the choice as to who to aid. Samara is your ally, has shown herself to be trustworthy and honorable, and Moranth (I forget the spelling) is a evil sex-pire who kills people for her own pleasure. The only reason you would help Moranth out is if you are a renegade player who fears that Samara *might* dishonor her oath (even though it is basically unheard of for them to break oaths and the game tells you that). To anyone else, the choice is so blatantly clear as to who they would actually side with that it might as well not be a choice unless you are going renegade for the evulz.

Also, in FE, you would have to balance it out very carefully. Using FE9/10 again, what if you did sell Elincia out? Titania and the brothers are all Crimean (IIRC, Titania retired to help Greil and Oscar to help his brothers), so selling Elincia out would either deprive you of over half the GM, or make Titania/Oscar (and possibly Boyd/Rolf) completely meaningless as characters as they sell out their beliefs and freaking princess for money. Not to mention Mia, Nephenee, Kieran, Brom, and Ilyana (Oh-hey! Let's go join the people who just captured you!), Zihark, Tormod, Stefan, and the Laguz (join the people who kill the things you care about/you). So pretty much your player party would consist of Ike, Mist, Rhys, Soren, Shinon, Gatrie, Jill, Haar, the four generals, and maybe, maybe Marcia, Astrid, and Tanith. That hardly seems fair.

[General Banzai]

If Ike is so morally torn by the decision then he wouldn't have made it anyways. This circles around to my first point: You are not Ike. Ike is a character entirely independent of the player. He is made in a way that the player is supposed to identify with him, but the player and Ike are not synonymous entities.

In order for the branched paths approach to work, we would first have to water down both stories. If it took IS a certain amount of development time and resources to make PoR as we know it now, then in order to make a second branch of equivalent quality it would require additional time or additional resources dedicated to that task. IS however is not a humongous studio. In fact, they had already split their resources because they made FESS and PoR concurrently. So we actually DID get our two games, except they didn't come in one package and one price. And that's another thing. If IS did use more resources or more time to bundle two equivalent split path games into one disc, they would have a hard time trying to make up those monetary losses. The game would probably not sell much more than it did already, as the game is already something of a niche. The Fire Emblem games are easy to make and cheap to make typically and thus can make up for mediocre sales because their budget is so low.

Thus, it would be impossible for IS to inject a second story into PoR as we know it without dedicating less resources to each story. This is where the "if done well" in your previous post comes in. Because if IS is using half the usual crew to develop each story, then I'm not so sure it can be done right. Instead of one strong, well-written story, like PoR currently has, we would have two weak or water-down ones.

And even beyond the resource and manpower limitations, having split paths cheapens the experience of either path. Everything you do in one path is nullified by the constant thought that it could have easily turned out differently if you just clicked a menu screen. The story no longer has any power, because you're being given the freedom to mould the story to your whims. As I pointed out before, you're not as good a storyteller as IS is. Why not let them do their job, come out with a strong story like the one in PoR, and not try to sacrifice all that for the sake of some gimmicky gameplay elements?

[bottlegnomes]

And you are as good a storyteller as IS?

Anyway, you just presented the same idea as Snowy as a way to make Ike siding with Daein a good story. Make up your mind. You also admitted it could be made into a good story, which was my initial point. Because of that, I don't see any reason to continue this.

[Snowy_One]

And you are as good a storyteller as IS?

Anyway, you just presented the same idea as Snowy as a way to make Ike siding with Daein a good story. Make up your mind. You also admitted it could be made into a good story, which was my initial point. Because of that, I don't see any reason to continue this.

I sure hope I'm not. I mean... *points to FE10* Do I even need to put it in spoilers as to Ranulf's little line depriving the big reveal of any real meaning?

Anyways, it's not that a split path can't be done, FE8 did it after all, it's that it needs to be handled in a certain way. You can't give good/evil choices as they compromise the integrity of both the main character and his followers (in games that do this, the allies are usually far more developed than would be possible for a FE game and rarely result in every character universally agreeing and even in-character fights/revolts). So you can't have the choice to aid or sell out Elincia, for example, as it compromises a lot of what could happen. At the least you would need largely separate rosters for each path.

One possible idea is simply having chapters where you have different means to achieve a goal. Like assaulting a fort for example. You can send in thieves and maybe a few non-mounted units to sneak inside, hire out people to build battering rams, or something else. It's a minor choice in the grand scheme of things, but it can show a lot about the character. You can even have this reflect in story dialogue (Did you hear about that bastard Ike? Lured an entire Daein convoy out onto a minefield just so he could kill them!). Not sure how I feel about rewards though...

Oh. Just had another idea. Campgrounds. Basically functioning exactly the same as the chapter menus, but allowing you to control the character as they go around, talk to the people, watch supports play out, and such. Not actually a gamechanger or anything, just a different presentation that could help enhance the world immersion.

[eclipse]

So, uh, kind of like a more interactive base? Maybe? It would be interesting, aesthetically. Practically, I'd rather have a good game over a spruced-up base.

[General Banzai]

And you are as good a storyteller as IS?

Anyway, you just presented the same idea as Snowy as a way to make Ike siding with Daein a good story. Make up your mind. You also admitted it could be made into a good story, which was my initial point. Because of that, I don't see any reason to continue this.

I demonstrated that any attempt to make it in a good story would rely on Ike being a genuinely good person and thus he never would have made the bad decision in the first place, read things bettar

One possible idea is simply having chapters where you have different means to achieve a goal. Like assaulting a fort for example. You can send in thieves and maybe a few non-mounted units to sneak inside, hire out people to build battering rams, or something else. It's a minor choice in the grand scheme of things, but it can show a lot about the character. You can even have this reflect in story dialogue (Did you hear about that bastard Ike? Lured an entire Daein convoy out onto a minefield just so he could kill them!). Not sure how I feel about rewards though...

Aha, now this is what I'm talking about. The decisions are TACTICAL decisions rather than story decisions. It's kind of like Ch 8 of FESS where Forde and Kyle each give Ephraim a different tactical option to follow and then the game lets the player decide which option to take. This is the kind of stuff that I would like to see more of, as it ACTUALLY influences the gameplay rather than simply give you two sets of different chapters. And it leaves the story intact.

Edited January 3, 2012 by General Banzai

[NinjaMonkey]

The Fire Emblem games are easy to make and cheap to make typically and thus can make up for mediocre sales because their budget is so low.

If that's true, then why hasn't FE12 been released outside Japan? If they are cheap to make as you say, then we should have had FE12 months ago (surely it can't be all that costly to translate Japanese text and replace it with English text). And as you said, the mediocre sales should cover whatever costs are involved.

Edited January 3, 2012 by NinjaMonkey

[Celice]

Easy to make has nothing to do with localization ._.

[NinjaMonkey]

I'd have thought they'd want to make as much money as possible out of every game they made.

[Celice]

If they don't think they'd be able to get a return on the money they invest in localizing the title, then they wouldn't bring it over. You still have a lot of costs in localizing a title, paying out translators, coders, marketing, factory production costs, copy rights and all that stuffs. No matter how cheap the title is able to be made initially, if there are other titles that Nintendo thinks would make more money for the time and effort invested in localizing them, then they'll go with the other games, not whichever is cheapest to be produced.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Celice

[General Banzai]

Furthermore the 3DS came out before FE12 could have been localized.

[Celice]

That doesn't necessarily stop anything though. Especially since the 3DS can still run DS games, and as such, can turn a profit for the new system. Now, if it was more like, the 3DS came out two years ago, and FE12 just came out last year, then localization could seem like a steep request.

There's several games that make the leap over localization despite being on an out of date system. It's mostly a question of how "late" the difference between the old console and the new one is. If it's been too long, often there's a generic lack of interest that could push sales for the title. Right now, it's still in a pretty sweet spot, especially since the number of really good games for the 3DS can be counted with a few fingers

(I mean, even GameFAQs loves Fire Emblem, it was regularly in the top 10 for years)

[General Banzai]

There's also the fact that FE3 is Japan's baby, but even among the hardcore American fans, it's nothing special.

Edit: Oroville CA? Reppin' da Butte County

Edited January 3, 2012 by General Banzai

[Othin]

Pokemon + Nobunaga's Ambition is set to be released in Japan for the DS approximately a year after the 3DS was released. Who knows what that says about its chances of localization, but it goes to show that the DS isn't gone yet.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

A lot of "outdated" consoles still have releases after their successors come out.

[bottlegnomes]

Oh, I didn't mean you, Snowy. I do kinda like your base idea, as long as they don't skimp on the game. Kinda like shinig force where you can go talk to people(info convos or supports), buy stuff, or whatever. It could make it a little more intimate.

I demonstrated that any attempt to make it in a good story would rely on Ike being a genuinely good person and thus he never would have made the bad decision in the first place, read things bettar

Don't give me that bull shit. You said:

Now, let's say we have a route split where you joined Daein, but the whole time Ike is suffering within himself because he knows he did the wrong thing. Most of his friends (Boyd, Rhys, etc) have deserted him and he is forced to do despicable, murderous things to people he knows are innocent. That would make for compelling drama (hell, it's basically the beginning of FFIV), especially if we juxtapose Ike's character with the cold and merciless ones of Soren and Shinon. BUT Ike's internal conflict is caused by his personality already established at the beginning of the game. We can't have a story branch where Ike joins Daein and likes it, or even is apathetic towards it; not only is that absolutely boring, but it doesn't even work with Ike's character

I don't see anything in there about Ike not doing it because his character wouldn't let him. All you say is he's conflicted, unlike Soren and Shinon. The only place where you even make mention of something like that is when you say it's basically the beginning of FF4, which is in no way saying what you claim to have said. It's the exact same idea Snowy presented and you attacked.

[Celice]

A lot of "outdated" consoles still have releases after their successors come out.

Yeah, but there's a threshold where we realize a system is still making sales, and cheap developers are trying to make money. There's still PS2 titles coming out. Shitty sports ones. Not to mention pirate games still being developed for the NES and Famicom XD (Also, the Dreamcast receives actual games still, with production costs and everything)

However, end-of-life systems were interesting in Japan. A really fun Link to the Past ripoff came out long after the SNES had died (the SNES in general received support for a good, long while in Japan, after its death). It was well received, and still spoken highly of to this day. It's a chance for developers to work on games without high costs.

That's all pretty irrelevant though considering that we're talking about localizing an existing game, not bringing out a brand new one

[Kyea]

I want real between characters supports again, rather than this generic crap. Although, it would be cool to still be able to support between any units, but that's a lot of content to cover and I could understand why they wouldn't. I also want supports to play a major role in the new "gang-up" mechanic. If just fighting near each other gives you bonuses shouldn't teaming up provide better bonuses? Kind of like triangle attack? I hope they include features similar to that, but more based on support rather than class.

[Othin]

Thinking about customization again, it can be good as long as characters retain important unique qualities. For example, let's look at FE4's generation system. You can customize many of the Gen 2 characters' capabilities, but for the most part, they still remain unique in their own important ways. There are 13 types of Sety and 13 types of Arthur, all with many different capabilities, but none of Arthur's let him get Sety's high base stats and access to staffs and Lightning, and none of Sety's let him get Arthur's horse and access to Wrath. As much as they can be customized, they remain distinct in important ways.

It's certainly not a perfect system, obstructed mainly by the fact that you have to play through FE4's entire first generation largely the same way in order to get to the customization. But it goes to show how customization can be effective when properly limited.

[Celice]

I'd like to see weapons, or even a skill, which will make other stats make a difference in how much damage you do or take. Like, maybe a Skill Axe that will make weapon damage be based off or take into account the skill stat as well as the normal weapon might and strength.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Celice

[luchinania]

I would like a story about man vs man, instead of good vs evil. I think a bit like FE9/FE10? I haven't finished those games so I'm not sure, but I think I've read somewhere that it's a bit like that. Anyway, part of the reason I want this is because I think it would be interesting to be able to play as both sides. Like maybe what would determine who would be the winner is a combination of a character like the tactician from FE7 and the right tactics, so maybe you could play 2 different paths and achieve 4 different endings. Or maybe have two different lords with two different routes that overlap and where the goal is the same but they don't get along because their countries are at war or something like that, so they never officially team up and even compete and fight with each other. Meh, I doubt IS would do something like this but a person can always dream, right?

Other things I would like, and that I think have a somewhat better chance of actually happening.

• Supports like the ones in FE9. I want supports that I can squee over.
• A smaller team than the ones in FE11/FE12. I got a lot of useless characters that I never got the chance to use because I didn't have time to train them all.
• Branching paths like FE8.
• A really hard arena that would make arena abusing not worth it for me. For example, the arena in TRS is a bit harder than the ones typically found in FE so I found myself not using them as much.
• Rescuing, shoving, and canto.
• Different levels of difficulty and permadeath.
• Good mages and archers. I also hope that the fact that lockpick and mug are swappable doesn't mean that thieves are obsolete.
• Since skirmishes are back, I want them all to be skippable. Some of the skirmishes in TRS interfered with the mandatory maps, which meant I had to fight them to reach places that I wanted to go.

Also, another thing I would like-that probably will never happen and that some other people would probably not like-is enemies that change level according to your average overall party level. So no matter how much grinding I do, there's still some level of difficulty. This means that grinding would be more for training a character to a usable level and to give me a chance to use all the characters given to me.

[Snowy_One]

* A smaller team than the ones in FE11/FE12. I got a lot of useless characters that I never got the chance to use because I didn't have time to train them all.

I don't think a SMALLER team is needed. I think a team where you NEED to rely on EVERYONE is needed. According to you (I haven't been keeping up on the release info as I do not have a 3DS), skirmishes are back. This means you can level up everyone... So... Why not let us use everyone in the maps? Make maps with 20 deployment and such! If you're worried about power-levelers, stick on a level-cap. Or better yet, simply make it so that there is enough EXP to level everyone up and make it that leveling up a select group too high drastically cuts into the amount of EXP earned (like, enemies give only 5 EXP on death, but for every unit deployed, you get +1 EXP or something).

* Different levels of difficulty and permadeath.

I thought that was industry standard... though I'm starting to lose the feeling that perma-death is needed. Yes, it's been around for a long time and it is hard to imagine FE without it, but when a character dies... do you sniffle and continue on despite their loss? Or reset the game? I think the perma-death needs to be made relevant again. Like, say, a 'hardcore' mode where you only get one save file, the game only auto-saves after you beat the chapter, and the file gets erased when you load it up (to prevent save scumming).

* Good mages and archers. I also hope that the fact that lockpick and mug are swappable doesn't mean that thieves are obsolete.

Mages need more durability and movement, archers either need their niche more defined or to counter at 1-range, and movement needs a serious nerf for this to happen. More defend-type chapters would go a long way to accomplishing this.

Also, another thing I would like-that probably will never happen and that some other people would probably not like-is enemies that change level according to your average overall party level. So no matter how much grinding I do, there's still some level of difficulty. This means that grinding would be more for training a character to a usable level and to give me a chance to use all the characters given to me.

[dondon151]

Also, another thing I would like-that probably will never happen and that some other people would probably not like-is enemies that change level according to your average overall party level. So no matter how much grinding I do, there's still some level of difficulty.

This does not exactly work and can be abused. If you don't use every single character, the low-leveled units will drag down the average party level. On the flip side, a really high leveled overpowered unit will be much better than the enemies, and a single outlier does not affect the average party level very much.

Look at games like FFTA where this mechanism is in play and can still be worked around. I think your idea is fine, but there needs to be a "smarter" algorithm to determining enemy level than just the average level of player units.

[Book of Ereshkigal]

How about it takes into account how many times a unit has been deployed, and uses it to determine their influence in the level spread of the enemy?

Edited January 8, 2012 by L95

[Othin]

All that for an effect that would just reduce rewards for playing well and reduce penalties for playing poorly, intentionally or not? Hardly seems like a good idea. If you think grinding gives too little of a challenge, don't grind. Leave it as an easy option for those who want it. Rankings can work perfectly well for penalizing grinding for those who want to play at a more skillful level anyway.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Othin